Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 147 posts

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#11

Post by for1nner »

catapart wrote: post #8
oneepic wrote: post #3

Current headline: "Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators" Tail end of the article: >However, the judge allowed Andersen’s complaint that her 16 copyrighted works were used without her authorization to move forward. I'm not loving this headline. (edit: stamped comment w/ the current headline to be safe)

Yeah; headline leaves out the pretty salient bit that the plaintiffs can amend their claims to be more accurate, which will only make the case more logistically sound. Headline makes it seem like the case is over, when it's not.

I don't really see a way they can make their claims "more accurate" unless these models decide to open-source - and why would they ever do that?

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#12

Post by lightedman »

dave333 wrote: post #7

As a non lawyer my understanding is that it is no longer necessary to copyright images to be protected as creator of a work, but it seems you need actually to copyright work if you want to sue.

No, you copyright the work if you want to claim all the damages like punitive and such. You can still sue to prevent usage of your work without having formally filed a copyright.

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#13

Post by sandworm101 »

>> He wrote that the sheer size of the LAION database may protect the company because it is “simply not plausible that every training image used to train Stable Diffusion was copyrighted (as opposed to copyrightable) or that all DeviantArt users’ output images rely upon (theoretically) copyright training images.”

This is where I think the judge misspoke. "Copyrighted" does not mean registered. Copyrights attach at creation and does not require anything of the creator. What the judge is referencing is the fact that registered copyrighted works are given additional protections, notably the award of attorney fees in disputes. But the fact that a work was not registered, what the judge incorrectly describes as "copyrighted", does not mean it is outside copyright. All the same rules apply governing how the material may be used or not used. You just don't get as money when you sue over a non-registered work.

I would hazard that the vast majority of copyrighted works are not registered. Every holiday photo taken is copyrighted. Every word typed on HN is copyrighted. Virtually none are registered. That doesn't mean such things are public domain, free for use by whomever/whatever runs across them online.

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#14

Post by catapart »

for1nner wrote: post #11
catapart wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah; headline leaves out the pretty salient bit that the plaintiffs can amend their claims to be more accurate, which will only make the case more logistically sound. Headline makes it seem like the case is over, when it's not.

I don't really see a way they can make their claims "more accurate" unless these models decide to open-source - and why would they ever do that?

It's hard to remember exactly what my problem with it was, but if you look up the original filing and read what the artists claim is being done with their images, you can clearly seem some invalid assertions on their part. That's why I even took an interest in the case, in the first place. I like Anderson and I think what she's aiming for is a good goal, but when I read the case I was like "oh shit, this is doomed to fail."

Again, I don't remember what the exact description was, but I remember it jumping out as obviously wrong (a layman's interpretation of a neural network). Feel free to go over that and it should be pretty obvious how the claims could be amended. Barring that, just wait for the filing because I'm sure the plaintiff lawyers will be jumping all over this.

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#15

Post by alistairSH »

This might be a dumb question... I decide to try my hand at art. So, I take courses at the local college, where I'm exposed to copyrighted art. Anything I produce will, in some small way, be based on the totality of my life experience, including any copyrighted material I've encountered along the way?

How is training an AI any different than "training" a human? In the human case, isn't any court case really based on the output (my art looks like previous work), not the input (I saw some art somewhere)?

I feel like I'm missing something (obv IANAL).

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#16

Post by jstanley »

for1nner wrote: post #4

Am I wrong that this seems like a not-good precedent for artists/content creators and the future (much less present) of training data?

In what way is it not good? It means the stuff you create is less likely to get you sued, no?

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#17

Post by spywaregorilla »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #9

Headline is quite a bit more definitive than the actual ruling: > The three artists — Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz — immediately ran into problems as two of them — McKernan and Ortiz — did not register their works with the U.S. Copyright Office. Two of them got bounced, Anderson remains. > Judge Orrick writes that it is “unclear” as to whether Stable Diffusion holds “compressed copies” of the image…

It does not contain compressed "copies" of the image. It contains a synthesis of the image.

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#18

Post by nobodyandproud »

sandworm101 wrote: post #13

>> He wrote that the sheer size of the LAION database may protect the company because it is “simply not plausible that every training image used to train Stable Diffusion was copyrighted (as opposed to copyrightable) or that all DeviantArt users’ output images rely upon (theoretically) copyright training images.” This is where I think the judge misspoke. "Copyrighted" does not mean registered . Copyrights attach at c…

> This is where I think the judge misspoke. "Copyrighted" does not mean registered. Copyrights attach at creation and does not require anything of the creator. What the judge is referencing is the fact that registered copyrighted works are given additional protections, notably the award of attorney fees in disputes.

Aren’t there visual art in the public domain?

INAL but the judge’s ruling seems technically correct, so what am I missing?

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#19

Post by wredue »

alistairSH wrote: post #15

This might be a dumb question... I decide to try my hand at art. So, I take courses at the local college, where I'm exposed to copyrighted art. Anything I produce will, in some small way, be based on the totality of my life experience, including any copyrighted material I've encountered along the way? How is training an AI any different than "training" a human? In the human case, isn't any court case really based on…

You are actually the one doing something though.

If a line appears on the page, it’s because that’s your intent. For an AI, when a line appears, that is always someone else’s intent.

AI can only copy.

I mean. Do we really need to go over all the reason why an art scanner that copies art and maybe paints it differently is fundamentally not the same as a human learning to create art?

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#20

Post by sidewndr46 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #13

>> He wrote that the sheer size of the LAION database may protect the company because it is “simply not plausible that every training image used to train Stable Diffusion was copyrighted (as opposed to copyrightable) or that all DeviantArt users’ output images rely upon (theoretically) copyright training images.” This is where I think the judge misspoke. "Copyrighted" does not mean registered . Copyrights attach at c…

Copyright does at least in theory lapse, depending on the nature of the work. I don't think I've seen any AI companies claiming all their training dataset is pre-copyright however.
Post reply on HN